Home
EA Sports UFC News Post


MMA Junkie has posted an interview with EA Sports UFC Creative Director, Brian Hayes and Lead Producer, Nate McDonald. Quite a few interesting tidbits of information came out of it.

They talk about how many fighters will be in the game, adding more through DLC, how they come up with ratings and much more. Unfortunately, it looks like the release of the game could get pushed to the Summer, but nothing has been confirmed. Another piece of bad news? No fighter share.

Quote:
Going off of that, a major feature people enjoyed in “EA Sports MMA” was the ability to create a fighter and share them online. Will the fighter share option be brought back for this upcoming title?

That’s something we loved as well, but we can’t do it anymore for a number of reasons. One of the big things people did on a game like “Fight Night” is making Rocky Balboa, or Floyd Mayweather or whatever. But nowadays when people can make YouTube clips and share them, there’s this whole grey area where if our game allows users to make a Rocky character that’s the intellectual property of somebody else, it causes a ton of problems. There is a “Create-A-Fighter” and you could create you own Rocky, but when we are facilitating the sharing of content, it gets very difficult.

Read the full interview at MMA Junkie, here.

Game: EA Sports UFCReader Score: 5/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS4 / Xbox OneVotes for game: 6 - View All
EA Sports UFC Videos
Member Comments
# 1 Gotmadskillzson @ 03/27/14 08:21 PM
No fighter share because they are afraid of Youtube copy right blow back ? WTF......

Guess that would explain why they took out some of the editing features in Madden. And from the sounds of it, I'm starting to think this game won't come out until September. It is going on April and they still don't have a release date contract signed yet ? wow.
 
# 2 Pappy Knuckles @ 03/27/14 08:32 PM
No fighter share sucks, but I assume that it won't be that big of a deal since we have CAF site templates to work from. It will be a bit more time consuming for sure, but if it's a quality recreation I won't mind.

I don't think that the release is gonna drag all the way to September. At least I hope not. I'm sure we'll be hearing something within a month or two.
 
# 3 aholbert32 @ 03/27/14 08:42 PM
EA would never release this game later than July but I think it will be mid June. They have been sticking to the late spring release line and Summer doesnt start until June 17th. Madden comes out in August. Fifa and NHL come out in September and Live is out in October. They dont want this game to get lost in the fall shuffle. Also EA Sports needs the sales in the 2nd quarter.

Very disappointed in the lack of fighter share. Thank god for sites like MMA-CAF.
 
# 4 aholbert32 @ 03/27/14 08:52 PM
The more I read...the more im disappointed. He's basically blaming Youtube for no fighter share and the inability to edit fighters wardrobe (which you could do in FNC). I do love that they have 12 venues in the game (Montreal, Anaheim, LA, Toronto, Vegas, Brazil).
 
# 5 sportsfan8812 @ 03/27/14 09:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
The more I read...the more im disappointed. He's basically blaming Youtube for no fighter share and the inability to edit fighters wardrobe (which you could do in FNC). I do love that they have 12 venues in the game (Montreal, Anaheim, LA, Toronto, Vegas, Brazil).
Yeah I agree. The answer for everything seems to be "maybe in the future" or "the next installment." No fighter share does suck but like you said, we do have those sites to help. And I don't think it will be September. I'm patient. I don't really mind waiting to be honest, but I completely understand everyone's frustration.

All those venues will definitely be pretty bad *** though.
 
# 6 Thrash13 @ 03/28/14 12:06 AM
Welcome to the next gen! At least it won't be nearly as bad as EA Sport's transition last gen. Those first games were bare bones, lol. This is EA's first UFC game though, and I think it will be a good one when all is said and done.

As far as release date goes, they're used to having NCAA Football release in July, so as long as they get it out by then, they'll be fine. Competing with Madden, FIFA, etc. won't work out well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
# 7 redsrule @ 03/28/14 03:31 AM
No fighter share is GARBAGE. Just like his "excuse" for it not being in there.
 
# 8 Coolade @ 03/28/14 09:39 AM
Don't forget ea MMA had fighter share and due to legal problems caused by it, had to start blocking key words for the names of created fighters, that were in the UFC etc. It's not an excuse it just practicality and smart thinking.
 
# 9 aholbert32 @ 03/28/14 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolade
Don't forget ea MMA had fighter share and due to legal problems caused by it, had to start blocking key words for the names of created fighters, that were in the UFC etc. It's not an excuse it just practicality and smart thinking.
Its actually lazy thinking. Fighter Share is no different than something like Youtube. If a copyright holder or likeness rights holder sees a video on Youtube that violates his or her rights, the person sends a DMCA notice and Youtube starts the removal process. Youtube isnt liable because they are simply hosting the content and played no role in its creation.

Same with Fighter Share. If someone creates Rocky Balboa and Paramount objects to it, Paramount would send EA a similar notice and all EA will have to do is take it down. If they want, they can go the extra step and do what they did with EA MMA and limit certain keywords. No need to take out the entire feature.

With that said, as long as sites like CAF-MMA are around I'm willing to do the legwork in creating a fighter.
 
# 10 elgreazy1 @ 03/28/14 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Its actually lazy thinking. Fighter Share is no different than something like Youtube. If a copyright holder or likeness rights holder sees a video on Youtube that violates his or her rights, the person sends a DMCA notice and Youtube starts the removal process. Youtube isnt liable because they are simply hosting the content and played no role in its creation.

Same with Fighter Share. If someone creates Rocky Balboa and Paramount objects to it, Paramount would send EA a similar notice and all EA will have to do is take it down. If they want, they can go the extra step and do what they did with EA MMA and limit certain keywords. No need to take out the entire feature.

With that said, as long as sites like CAF-MMA are around I'm willing to do the legwork in creating a fighter.
It just seems silly that the more we get online and the more we focus on connectivity and user content creation the more corporations are trying to take it away from being sharable content. That makes no sense in this point in time when knowledge, information, and engagement is so pivotal in gaming, tech and social realms.
 
# 11 Azamien @ 03/28/14 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Its actually lazy thinking. Fighter Share is no different than something like Youtube. If a copyright holder or likeness rights holder sees a video on Youtube that violates his or her rights, the person sends a DMCA notice and Youtube starts the removal process. Youtube isnt liable because they are simply hosting the content and played no role in its creation.

Same with Fighter Share. If someone creates Rocky Balboa and Paramount objects to it, Paramount would send EA a similar notice and all EA will have to do is take it down. If they want, they can go the extra step and do what they did with EA MMA and limit certain keywords. No need to take out the entire feature.

With that said, as long as sites like CAF-MMA are around I'm willing to do the legwork in creating a fighter.
That's all well and good as long as Paramount, in your example, decides that it's only an issue worthy of a take-down order and not a lawsuit. It only takes one trademark or copyright holder to decide that EA is profiting from their IP and suddenly this franchise gets O'Bannoned.

Ask any number of file sharing services and sites how the "we only host, we don't create" defence has worked out for them. As for YouTube, they can be held liable, which is why they bend over backwards to respond to take-down orders, to the point of taking down videos they shouldn't have to, just to cover their very vulnerable asses.
 
# 12 aholbert32 @ 03/28/14 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azamien
That's all well and good as long as Paramount, in your example, decides that it's only an issue worthy of a take-down order and not a lawsuit. It only takes one trademark or copyright holder to decide that EA is profiting from their IP and suddenly this franchise gets O'Bannoned.

Ask any number of file sharing services and sites how the "we only host, we don't create" defence has worked out for them. As for YouTube, they can be held liable, which is why they bend over backwards to respond to take-down orders, to the point of taking down videos they shouldn't have to, just to cover their very vulnerable asses.
Wrong. The O'bannon comparison doesnt work. In NCAA, EA was creating players with similar likenesses, numbers, height and weight to real people. EA was doing the creating. The issue with EA was never the fact that people could edit the players.....it was that EA was using likenesses even before people edited the game.

There are very few things I know about and this is one of them. I serve as litigation counsel for one of the biggest media companies in the world. We deal with both sides of this issue. People using our content and people posting other people's content on our sites.

You couldnt be more wrong about Youtube. They dont bend over backwards. I'll give you an example: Lets say you post one of my company's shows on Youtube. I see it and I send Youtube a takedown notice and they immediately take it down. That should be it right? Nope. Youtube will send you a takedown notification and all you have to do is say "That content is owned by me" without providing any evidence that it is....and Youtube will restore the video to your account.

The only option my company has is to file suit (which costs us money) and forward the complaint to Youtube. Youtube will then take down the video until the matter is resolved. We dont have an option to sue Youtube and if we did the case would be dismissed under the DMCA. Same goes for EA.

There are hundreds of file share sites that have used the "we only host" defense for years and have been very successful. The ones that fail are the ones like MegaUpload that refuse to respond to DMCA takedown notices or dont have a takedown policy.

EA is overreacting to Obannon when it has nothing to do with fighter share. They are two different things.
 
# 13 vthallman @ 03/28/14 01:00 PM
I think this has very little to do with property rights and everything to do with DLC sales. Don't let their smokescreen fool you. That's where EAs making a killing now and CAF sharing would significantly cut into those sales. Can't really blame them.
 
# 14 aholbert32 @ 03/28/14 01:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vthallman
I think this has very little to do with property rights and everything to do with DLC sales. Don't let their smokescreen fool you. That's where EAs making a killing now and CAF sharing would significantly cut into those sales. Can't really blame them.
I dont know about that. Using FNC as an example, there are a few Vitali and Wladamir K. CAFs that can be downloaded for free through Fighter Share but I (and I think most people) would rather spend 5 bucks and get the EA licensed version with the correct gear, ratings and facial features.
 
# 15 ManiacMatt1782 @ 03/28/14 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by vthallman
I think this has very little to do with property rights and everything to do with DLC sales. Don't let their smokescreen fool you. That's where EAs making a killing now and CAF sharing would significantly cut into those sales. Can't really blame them.
It might be a factor, but not as big as you think.
 
# 16 Azamien @ 03/28/14 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by aholbert32
Wrong. The O'bannon comparison doesnt work. In NCAA, EA was creating players with similar likenesses, numbers, height and weight to real people. EA was doing the creating. The issue with EA was never the fact that people could edit the players.....it was that EA was using likenesses even before people edited the game.

There are very few things I know about and this is one of them. I serve as litigation counsel for one of the biggest media companies in the world. We deal with both sides of this issue. People using our content and people posting other people's content on our sites.

You couldnt be more wrong about Youtube. They dont bend over backwards. I'll give you an example: Lets say you post one of my company's shows on Youtube. I see it and I send Youtube a takedown notice and they immediately take it down. That should be it right? Nope. Youtube will send you a takedown notification and all you have to do is say "That content is owned by me" without providing any evidence that it is....and Youtube will restore the video to your account.

The only option my company has is to file suit (which costs us money) and forward the complaint to Youtube. Youtube will then take down the video until the matter is resolved. We dont have an option to sue Youtube and if we did the case would be dismissed under the DMCA. Same goes for EA.

There are hundreds of file share sites that have used the "we only host" defense for years and have been very successful. The ones that fail are the ones like MegaUpload that refuse to respond to DMCA takedown notices or dont have a takedown policy.

EA is overreacting to Obannon when it has nothing to do with fighter share. They are two different things.
I was only using "O'Bannon" in verb form as an amusing (although apparently not) way to say that a game franchise could get killed by a lawsuit. I know there wouldn't be a any real similarity between the two cases.

As for the rest, thanks for the info.
 
# 17 papa_midnight @ 03/28/14 07:55 PM
the excuse by EA is a load of bull. how come 2K/THQ have been able to have a fantastic and in-depth fighter share system in their wwe game without a problem? It's just a pretty lazy excuse by EA when they realised it was a feature that people actually wanted.
 
# 18 SHAKYR @ 03/28/14 09:13 PM
I think it's a way to sell more DLC characters. They are hurting a fan base that loves creation modes and sharing their work. Me personally I was a huge fan of Fighter Share and anything dealing with customization and editing characters.
 
# 19 Coolade @ 03/28/14 11:43 PM
Lazy? I don't think there's anything lazy about trying to avoid litigation. It's just smart business all around, avoiding problems and profiting from future fighter scanned DLC. I don't you people realize a CAF won't come nearly as close as a completely body scanned person. It's not that big of a feature for a FIRST installment of a new annual series.
 
# 20 aholbert32 @ 03/29/14 12:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coolade
Lazy? I don't think there's anything lazy about trying to avoid litigation. It's just smart business all around, avoiding problems and profiting from future fighter scanned DLC. I don't you people realize a CAF won't come nearly as close as a completely body scanned person. It's not that big of a feature for a FIRST installment of a new annual series.
Huh? You just argued both sides of the argument. If as you say "CAF won't come nearly as close as a completely body scanned person" then it doesnt matter if EA has fighter share or not. They will profit from DLC no matter what.

Lets say you create Conor McGregor using Gameface and uploaded it to Fighter Share. It looks like Conor but because of CAF limitations it doesnt have accurate tattoos and gear. Lets say EA then creates Conor with his accurate face, tattoos and gear and sells it as DLC. Most of us including myself would spend the 2-5 bucks to get EA's Conor even if you had a decent one on Fighter Share.

Also EA (or any other game company) has never been sued for content in a CAP share feature. NEVER. Sony has this feature in The Show. 2k has this in the NBA 2k and WWE 2k. THQ had it in WWE and other UFC games. ****, EA had this in EA MMA and FNC. EA was sued because they were creating content not because they are hosting content. Its an overreaction to Obannon and its the easy way out. The law doesnt support damages stemming from a site hosting copyrighted content. EA would rather eliminate a feature used by tons of people than deal with having to spend nominal money (for a corporation that big) to defend (and win) against a lawsuit that isnt coming.

Finally, stop saying this is the first series of annual series. One, more likely than not this series will be biannual based on what most EA guys are saying. Two, this series has borrowed features from EA MMA and FNC so lets not act like leaving out Fighter Share was because of lack of time. EA has already admitted the reasons they left it out.
 

« Previous12Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.